> >> > NAS:-
> >> > The trade-off described by "Disposable soma",
as you have described
> >> > it, is equivalent to general "Antagonistic
pleiotropy". In both
> >> > cases, variants arise which either promote functioning early or
> >> > late, and early is favoured as here reproductive value is highest.

> >> JE:-
> >> The phrase: "reproductive value is highest" lacks
> >> rigor, yet the entire argument depends on it.

> > NAS:-
> > Apologies for not defining every single term that I use. I have
> > assumed some basic familiarity with evolutionary concepts.
> > Reproductive value is well defined, and is a key player in the
> > evolution of senescence, so I thought it unnecessary to go into more
> > detail. 
> > I am astonished that, amidst all the wooly group selectionist thinking
> > which is flying around this thread, I am being accused of lack of
> > rigour. I do not deny that group selection could have selected for
> > individuals to die so as to not cause a drain of resources for the
> > community, however I do know that such careless appeals to group
> > selection can be extremely misleading.

> BM:-
> Yeah, well, look at who is doing the accusing - John has a strong 
> tendency towards demanding absolutes  even where they are inappropriate.

JE:-
What determines if an absolute assumption of nature is
or is not appropriate is STRICTLY the refutability of 
that absolute assumption. Bill Morris is just attempting 
to dictate what is appropriate and inappropriate to
suit is own argument.

> BM:-
> Early reproductive value is obviously important, and may contribute to 
> menopause, but it seems an unlikely cause for senescence, at least in 
> iteroparous species.

JE:-
In humans the Darwinian maximand makes very
accurate prediction. If women become sterile
after about 45 and it takes up to 15 years
to raise their last infertile form to adulthood 
then women should selected to have a lifespan 
of about 60 years. Simple. 

> BM:-
> ..the best explanation 
> for senescence is that something like advanced age can't be selected for 
> unless it is useful,..

JE:-
The use of extended old age can provide a 
mutualised Darwinian fitness gain. In Humans the 
wisdom of old age constitutes a benefit to all 
within one tribe (no matter how they are related) 
because any older and wiser person who was once 
just young and stupid enjoyed the same mutualised 
benefit when they were young.  A mutualised benefit 
does not care about how individuals are related and 
can function using investment but not altruistic 
costs. However such a view remains almost entirely 
ignored within  evolutionary theory (however see 
recent post re:  slime moulds and gene pleiotropy 
enforcing cooperation) because the Darwinian maximand 
remains unknown. Sadly, it seems to make little 
difference to the professional Neo Darwinists that 
post here even if it is pointed out to  them what a 
biological maximand can be tested to be within nature.
They just ignore it.


>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/24/04 10:24:54 PM